Hi, On 06/28/2015 10:36 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Neil, Olivier, > Your opinions are requested here. > Thanks > > 2015-06-25 08:31, Zhang, Helin: >> Hi Neil > [...] >>> -279,7 +285,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf { >>> uint16_t data_len; /**< Amount of data in segment buffer. */ >>> uint32_t pkt_len; /**< Total pkt len: sum of all segments. */ >>> uint16_t vlan_tci; /**< VLAN Tag Control Identifier (CPU order) >>> */ >>> - uint16_t reserved; >>> + uint16_t vlan_tci_outer; /**< Outer VLAN Tag Control Identifier (CPU >>> +order) */ >> Do you think here is a ABI break or not? Just using the reserved 16 bits, >> which was >> intended for the second_vlan_tag. Thanks in advance! >> I did not see any "Incompatible" reported by validate_abi.sh.
I don't feel there's any ABI break here. I think an application should not use the "reserved" fields. Regards, Olivier